Standing Committee D

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill

Clause 26 - Payments out of Fund

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 26, page 14, line 12, at end insert
'and the National Paralympic Association'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 64, in
clause 26, page 14, line 12, at end insert
'and the National Paralympic Committee'.

Nick Hawkins: I welcome you back to the chairmanship of our proceedings, Mr. Illsley, which I expect we shall move through fairly swiftly this morning.
 Amendment No. 64 replaces the original amendment that we sought to table, amendment No. 24. At the successful launch of the Olympic bid at the Royal Opera house a week ago last Friday, Lord Moynihan and I had a useful, if brief, discussion with Philip Lane, the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association, who is keen that the interests of paralympic athletes should be fully recognised in the Bill. 
 It was pointed out to us that in the original amendment No. 24 we had referred to the National Paralympic Association, whereas officially, as I think the Minister will confirm, the proper title for the purpose of changes to the Bill should be the National Paralympic Committee. On that basis we tabled not only amendment No. 64, but a later amendment replacing National Paralympic Association with the National Paralympic Committee. We believe that, in relation to the powers in the clause to make payments out of the fund, the Bill should refer specifically to paralympic athletes. As subsection (2)(e) refers to the NPC, it would be helpful to make it clear that payments can be made to the NPC. 
 One of the things that British sport is, rightly, most proud of is the prominence given to paralympic athletes in recent Olympics. The United Kingdom has an amazingly successful record for medal winners in all kinds of paralympic sports. We have done well over the years in many Olympic sports, but even the success of our medal-winners in the main Olympics has been dwarfed by the huge success of British paralympic athletes. I know that the Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the courage and determination of 
 all those athletes. He will also agree that it was good to see one of them interviewed on stage by Sue Barker at the big launch and to hear his tribute to all those who had helped and supported him. He was a paralympic athlete from very much the area chosen for the London 2012 Olympics bid.

Don Foster: I join the tribute that the hon. Gentleman is paying to all the members of the British paralympic team and those who support them. However, would he not wish to add that London is the home of paralympics?

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He anticipates a point that I was about to make. It is something that will unite both sides of the House of Commons and of the Committee.
 All of us who care about sport are much aware of the development of sport for the disabled in the UK in recent years, particularly in London, as the hon. Gentleman said. I have been involved with many disabled athletes over the years and have met a number of competitors in wheelchair basketball and my original competitive sport of swimming. Many paralympic swimmers have been successful, and I have met a number of them. With the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and hon. Members from all parties, I took part in a match at Lord's involving disabled cricketers at the beginning of the last cricket season. I was fortunate enough to share a long partnership with the colleague of the hon. Member for Bath from the far west. It was an inspiring occasion and I am proud that the MCC and Lord's do so much for disabled cricketers. 
 All sporting bodies in this country have taken great care over disabled athletes in recent years, and we are right to be proud of that. I would like to see the NPC included in the Bill as a body that can receive payments out of the fund. I hope that the Government might be minded to accept the amendment.

Richard Caborn: I associate myself with the remarks made by hon. Members about supporting our Paralympic teams. They did fantastically well in Sydney—the best that they have ever done. We hope that the world-class performance money from the lottery, Sport England, and UK Sport will continue to ensure that they are properly funded and that we will get a crop of medals in Athens in a few months. Our best wishes go to all those who are competing.There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is arguing for equal treatment of the National Paralympic Committee and the National Olympic Committee—or, as they are also known, the British Paralympic Association and the British Olympic Association. We all endorse that sentiment. I will explain why the NPC does not appear in clause 26, and why the NOC does. Once I have explained, the hon. Gentleman may want to consider withdrawing his amendment. We are talking about facilitating the financing of the Olympics through the BOA, and about compensation. If London is successful in its bid, the International Olympic Committee will require the BOA to enter into
 a joint marketing programme with the London organising committee for the Olympic games. Under that arrangement, the BOA must transfer its commercial rights, including its ability to market the Olympic symbol—the five rings—to the London organising committee. That will greatly reduce the BOA's ability to generate sponsorship income. Sponsorship, particularly relating to the five rings, is the main source of its funding. The BOA will still have a key role to play both in helping to stage the games and in supporting Team GB. It is therefore vital that the BOA receives compensation for its loss of ability to generate income. The inclusion of the BOA as a possible recipient of the Olympic lottery draw fund payments is intended to enable it to receive compensation for the transfer of its rights to the London organising committee. The same arrangements are not required for the BPA. It is not required to enter into a joint marketing programme with the London organising committee, and it does not rely as heavily as the BOA on marketing and sponsorship income. Unlike the BOA, the BPA receives Exchequer funding for its running costs. The requirement to compensate the BOA for loss of income is the only reason why it appears as a possible recipient of the Olympic lottery draw fund. There is no need for a similar arrangement for the BPA. Given that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, and allow clause 26 to go through the parliamentary process unamended. Mr. Hawkins: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I will not pursue the matter today, or press the amendment to a vote, but I would like further to consider what he has said. It is possible that we will want to return to the matter either at a later stage, or in another place. Assuming that the Minister is right, and the reference does not have to be included in the Bill, I still find the matter slightly puzzling. It would be useful, should any unexpected developments arise, to have in the Bill the power for the NPC to receive payments from the fund. That would be a wise precaution because one never knows what might happen. However, for the moment, I understand the Minister's argument. I want to check the facts, but we can return to the matter later if we need to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in
clause 26, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
 '(2A) Any regulations under subsection (2) shall specify that any moneys received by the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund prior to the election by the International Olympic Committee of a city to host the 2012 Olympic Games shall be paid only under—
(a) subsections (2)(a)(b)(c) or (e), or
(b) for the purpose of sponsoring, promoting or developing opportunities for disabled athletes.
 (2B) If the Secretary of State makes an order by virtue of section 22(3) then he shall by regulation require that all moneys received by the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund shall be used for the purpose of subsections (2)(e) or (2A)(b).'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 26, in 
clause 30, page 15, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(c) any sports-related purposes with the agreement of the National Olympic Committee or the National Paralympic Association.' 
Amendment No. 72, in 
clause 30, page 15, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(ba) any sports-related purposes with the agreement of the National Olympic Committee or the National Paralympic Committee'.

Nick Hawkins: As the Committee will realise, amendment No. 72 replaces amendment No. 26. It substitutes the correct wording and refers to the National Paralympic Committee.
 We also want to widen the opportunity for the Olympic lottery distributor to provide money for sport, so we are seeking to introduce paragraph (c) to provide that wider opportunity. 
 Amendment No. 25 would take forward our earlier argument about the lottery starting before the 2005 decision date when we suggested that the money should go to disabled athletes. It would be helpful to provide a wider opportunity for the Olympic lottery distributor to provide money for sport if it were made clear that the money should go to disabled athletes. We have suggested that that should be restricted to clause 26(2)(a), (b), (c) or (e) and we have not amended those paragraphs, but it would be sensible not to include the Greater London Authority in that capacity in subsection (d). 
 I shall listen with interest to the Minister, but I am conscious that we debated some of the issues earlier.

Richard Caborn: A good try, yet again. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as earlier. Trust me, I am a Minister.
 When we went to the House of Commons and asked for the lottery to be used on a hypothecated basis, it was for a clearly defined funding stream for staging the 2012 Olympic games. If our intention had been to ask the House for more money for sport, we would have said so. There would be two consequences of the amendments. First, the money from the funding package might be spread more thinly and affect delivery of the 2012 games. Secondly, funding beyond the Olympics into other sport would be unfair to the other good causes that are funded by the lottery because there would be a displacement. I do not know the exact proportion, but we have tried to guide both the Committee and the House on that with the information that we have. In a spirit of fairness both to sport and to the other good causes, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, I suspect that we shall have to return to some of these issues on Report and, perhaps at greater length, in another place. I see no benefit in prolonging the argument now because the Minister will not change his mind at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Caborn: I want to ensure that I did not mislead the Committee, and especially the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The hon. Gentleman referred to top-slicing of other good causes and asked whether there would be equal top slices based on the regional impact assessment. My answer was yes. I discussed the matter when I returned to my office, and all the discussion that had taken about how we approach the good causes and the RIA was correct. Clause 25(2) provides—this is also relevant to clause 26—the facility to top-slice in varying degrees, so I do not mislead the hon. Gentleman. The calculations in the RIA are based on a consistent top-slicing, and clause 25(2) does allow for a variation of that. I wanted to put that on record as I thought it would be unfair if it were not brought to the attention of the Committee.
 It is our intention to ensure that all the good causes are top-sliced equally. That is what all our calculations are based on and what the RIA was based upon, but it is difficult to predict the situation seven years from now; therefore there is the provision for flexibility, if circumstances were to mean it would be unfair to top-slice equally.

Don Foster: I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the position. I think that the Committee will have been pleased to hear not just that there is a possibility that the slicing may be at a different rate, but the clear assurance that the intention is that, subject to unforeseen circumstances, it will be done on a pro rata basis. That is important, because the good causes that will lose out need an indication of the size of loss to their particular pot in the light of the introduction of the Olympic lottery games.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation to the hon. Member for Bath.
 Senior figures in sport have expressed to me their concerns that there may be some extra complication introduced by the Government's decision to have a separate Olympic lottery distribution fund, and there is a worry that the decisions taken by those running the fund may be skewed by the pressure of individual concerns over the Olympic bid. There is concern about whether there is a sufficient guarantee of a legacy from the money raised by the Olympic lottery. The legacy from the Manchester Commonwealth games has been very good, and I am sure that one of the reasons why the Government decided to support an Olympic bid for London for 2012 was the success of those games. All those of us who are passionate about sport were delighted to visit those games and that they were a success—I was particularly delighted because the shooting events were held at Bisley in my constituency. However, there is a concern that by setting up a separate Olympic lottery distribution fund there might be a danger of wasted administration costs. 
 We are now a couple of years forward from the ''game plan'' document and we have had a lot of money paid out through the existing sports lottery. Will the Minister recognise that he needs to address the concerns of those in sport on the legacy issue and 
 carefully examine the new Olympic lottery distribution fund to ensure that there is no waste on bureaucracy that might have been avoided had different decisions been made?

Richard Caborn: Those involved in sport have not indicated any of those concerns to me or to my officials; on the contrary, we have kept things lean and mean and ensured that the lines of communication are as short as possible where we can affect decisions. Although the hon. Gentleman has proposed amendments to stop this, I am sure that he will appreciate that we are attempting to ensure that there is flexibility in the distribution of lottery funds in a number of areas—for example, if the Mayor's office or the Greater London Authority wished to move in, the Bill allows us to compensate. We have attempted to ensure that the streamlining of payments is effective, because we know that we are operating under very tight time constraints as we move to the bid and—hopefully, after July 2005—beyond.
 There has been no indication to us about the legacy in respect of the lottery. The legacy was first class in relation to the Commonwealth games in Manchester. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I saw how a number of cities had dealt with the bid, the operation and the legacy, which taught us a lot, particularly when we consider the Sydney experience, where a fantastic—but massively underutilised—suite of facilities costs £10 million a year, not to fund its debts, but in revenue to keep those facilities running. If those in Sydney could make that choice again, they would not have two arenas. They would use a downtown arena in Sydney rather than building a new one. 
 We have learned from those experiences and have built them into our strategy, which is why we were commended so highly by the president of the IOC, Jacques Rogge. He said that the approach that the Brits had taken was very businesslike. We have been congratulated on the way that we approached the bidding process, part of which has been the legacy. I know of no criticism from those involved in sport, to the best of my knowledge. Later, the hon. Gentleman might be able to whisper in my ear the names of those who have been whispering in his ear, and then I shall be able to whisper in their ears. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Investment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: Subsection (3) states that
''the National Debt Commissioners shall comply with any direction of the Treasury.'' 
That seems to reinforce the huge power that the Treasury has over investment. I am sure that the Minister will say that the commissioners, whatever 
 they are doing, have to follow every direction of the Treasury, and every Bill relating to the matter has to specify that. 
 Having not come across the commissioners before, I am slightly curious to know who they are. I do not know whether the Minister has that information now, or whether he would prefer to write to me. It struck me that it was important to point out once again that the Treasury is exercising a vast amount of power.

Richard Caborn: We would like to believe that the Treasury does not have a vast amount of power, but it does. So much so, that the clause is no different from the existing lottery arrangements. It is part of the National Lottery Act 1993, and we are trying to mirror that, and dovetail with the special arrangements on hypothecation. It is in keeping with what is in the 1993 Act.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Winding up

Nick Hawkins: I shall be brief again. We have already debated amendment No. 71, which related to the clause. I would not repeat that debate, which took place in relation to an earlier group of amendments. I would, however, stress—I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter for the avoidance of doubt—that it is crucial that we make it clear when the Olympic lottery distribution fund is wound up. We hope that that will not take place until after a successful announcement of the bid, and a successful Olympics in 2012. We obviously hope that it will not have to be wound up after the bid has failed, but after the Olympics have taken place.
 It is crucial that the net assets go to sport at the end of the day, and that none of the money is wasted. We all recognise the sad history of the dome—I am sure it hovers over all Ministers like a spectre—and we do not want to see the Olympic bid repeat any of the mistakes that happened in relation to that. The point is still germane because some of us hope that a sporting use may be found for the dome in connection with the Olympic bid. When one goes to the site at the bottom of the lower Lea valley and looks at how close the dome is, just across the river, one can see that there should be some scope for it to be used. That issue does not relate to the clause, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government recognise that on winding up—whenever that takes place—it is crucial that no money is wasted and that the net receipts go to sport.

Richard Caborn: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman because he was present for the 25 questions that candidates had to answer. We said that the dome would be an integral part of any staging of the Olympics and that gymnastics, basketball and
 handball would take place there. We obviously did not do a very good job of convincing him where we would stage the games.
 I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the games should be as effective as possible. We have learned from the dome; I am a Millennium Commissioner, sitting with Lord Heseltine, who had great thoughts about the dome and brought it to the nation in a previous Administration. Bless his forethought. We have learned from past mistakes about the original decision to build it and how to wind it down. The dome may become beloved of the British people if we run several of the 2012 events in it.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful that the Minister has put that statement on the record. He will be aware that another Minister in the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham, recently said that there would be no role for the dome in the Olympics because the dome was on the wrong side of the river. I raised the issue in part so that we had it on the record from the Minister that it would be an integral part of the games. I am delighted to hear it, and so will be those people who live on that side of the river.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - The Olympic lottery distributor

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: I shall make a small point to the Minister. The Bill makes it clear that there will be an Olympic lottery distributor and the clause refers us to schedule 5, which describes how that will be done. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 1(2) of the schedule, which says:
 ''The Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that the distributor has at least 5 members at any time.'' 
On page 36 of the regulatory impact assessment, we are clearly told: 
 ''It is the intention that any new Olympic Distributor should be as lean and focused as possible and free from historical baggage.'' 
We welcome that and the intention that the loss to the Olympic lottery fund through necessary bureaucracy would be minimal. The assessment continues: 
 ''The measure proposes that an initial Board of five members be appointed with specific or relevant expertise.'' 
Will the Minister provide reassurance that it is the intention to restrict the number of board members to five and to minimise the bureaucracy associated with the board's work, and that the wording in the Bill is to provide for someone being taken ill or any other such event?

Nick Hawkins: I follow up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bath. I was going to leave my comments until we discussed schedule 5, but given that he has raised the issue, I want to raise a similar query about the Government's intentions. Paragraph 7 of the schedule reads:
 ''The Distributor may appoint staff.''
Paragraph 8(1) states: 
 ''The Distributor may establish a committee.'' 
I would be grateful if the Minister could put on the record, in general terms, the number of people on the committee—the hon. Member for Bath queried that—and the number of staff that the Government have in mind. If we deal with that point now, we will probably be able to take schedule 5 on the nod.

Richard Caborn: Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 5 refers to ''at least 5 members'', and it is our intention that the board have 5 members. However, the schedule provides flexibility, particularly if more expertise is required. We want to ensure that the board is small, but that it has the necessary quality and breadth of knowledge. We intend to keep schedule 5. The hon. Member for Bath can write back to Mrs. Foster to say that he has had yet another victory, on interpretation, in Committee.

Don Foster: That requires only a postcard.

Richard Caborn: Just a one-liner this time. The question of the number of staff is difficult, but the intention is to make sure that there is a quick clearing out, which is very focused and hypothecated. We want to keep both the committee and the number of staff to a minimum. The committee will be more of a conduit than an operations board, so we would expect a small number of staff to make sure that it works efficiently and effectively.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 30 - Distribution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: There is one issue that I want to raise. We debated amendment No. 72 in an earlier group, when we sought to persuade the Government to add a new paragraph to clause 30(2). I now want to discuss subsection (4)(a), which relates to expenditure for the provision of facilities outside London. The Minister will appreciate that the shooting events at a 2012 Olympics would be at Bisley, which is in my constituency and straddles the border with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). I have spent a lot of time talking to people there. They have already had an expansion in their facilities to host the shooting events at the Manchester Commonwealth games. I was lucky enough to be able to go to watch those and was asked to present some of the medals, which was a great privilege.
 As the Minister will recognise, it will undoubtedly be necessary to create many new facilities outside London, not only for shooting at Bisley but for sailing, which is anticipated to be in Weymouth, and other things—training camps and so on. In particular, there 
 will be a need to create facilities for sports such as rowing. I am grateful to the Minister for his answer yesterday to a written question of mine, relating to concerns that had been raised with me and my hon. and right hon. Friends about rowing, a sport of particular interest to my noble Friend Lord Moynihan, who was a distinguished Olympic silver medal winner at the Moscow games. The Amateur Rowing Association is concerned about the fact that it needs to host the world cup in 2005 and the world rowing championships in 2006, both at Dorney lake. I was delighted to note from the Minister's answer that provision is being made for rowing, but there will no doubt need to be more if, as we all hope, we are successful in our bid for the 2012 Olympics. 
 I therefore ask the Minister to expand a little on what the Government have in mind for other sports that might be covered by grants or loans. I appreciate that it is very early to be certain about these matters, but I am glad that we have specific provision in subsection (4)(a) for grants or loans for facilities outside London. If the Minister has other sports in mind, I would be grateful if he would indicate those to us. In particular, I am sure that he will want to confirm for the record that shooting, rowing and sailing are three of the sports for which it is envisaged that, in a successful Olympics, the facilities would have to be outside London.

Richard Caborn: We are a long way from 2012. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are taking sport very seriously indeed. He will recall that, on announcing our intentions for the Olympics, we announced another £100 million of investment in sports facilities. I know that we are having to catch up a bit because previous Administrations did not invest in sport to the same degree as us, but we are doing our best to ensure that there are new, high-quality facilities, not just for the Olympics, but for sport more widely.
 Turning to rowing, I can tell the Committee that, on the back of the great success of our rowers in Sydney and with the help of a number of schemes throughout the country, young people are going into rowing in a way that we never believed possible. 
 I, too, went to the shooting event at the Commonwealth games. Millions of pounds were spent on that facility, which has been well used beyond the Commonwealth and the Olympic games. If it is necessary to upgrade that, we shall do so. The same applies to sailing. I have been to Weymouth on a number of occasions. It is a fantastic centre of excellence for sailing, probably one of the best in Europe, and it has helped to regenerate the marine sector. It is good to see the regional development agency set up by the Labour Government when they came to power in 1997 working closely with the authorities and the governing body to ensure that it is a state-of-the-art facility now, let alone in 2012. We shall continue to invest in that and, indeed, in other facilities around the country. 
 I hope that, when the evaluation committee comes to the UK, it will see that we are not investing just for the Olympics, although that is important; we are 
 putting huge sums into the nation's sporting infrastructure, and we shall continue to do so in the coming years.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for putting his comments on the record.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Distribution policy

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 31, page 16, line 34, leave out subparagraph (ii).
 The Liberal Democrats have always made it clear that they support the Olympic bid. However, although an important side effect of a successful Olympics will be the worthwhile regeneration of the part of east London involved—the lower Lea valley and the surrounding area—we want to ensure that there is no danger that the Mayor of London could hijack a serious Olympic bid and turn it simply into a regeneration project. Who is calling the shots? We are happy for subsection (5)(b) to say that the Mayor of London needs to have a copy of any proposals, but the danger of subsection (4)(b)(ii) is that it could give the Mayor, as a statutory consultee, a power of veto. 
 Until recently, as all members of the Committee and the wider world will be aware, the Prime Minister was not at all keen on the current Mayor of London and was critical of him: indeed, at the last mayoral election he said that he would be a disaster for London. Only in the last few weeks has the Mayor apparently become the Prime Minister's new best friend. We are therefore anxious to ensure that the current Mayor has no power of veto. Of course we hope that there will be a different Mayor after the elections this year. Nevertheless, we believe that the Mayor should support the bid, and I am glad that he has said he does. 
 It is noteworthy that the Mayor was not one of the leading public figures on stage at the launch of the bid at the Royal Opera House. That was very much the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Barbara Cassani's show, which is absolutely right. The Minister may recognise that we are keen that it should stay at all stages an Olympic bid and that, although regeneration is very important and worth while, we should not put the cart before the horse. That is the basis on which we probe the possible deletion of subsection (4)(b)(ii).

Don Foster: You will be well aware, Mr. Illsley, both from the sittings that you have chaired and from those chaired by your colleague, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), the reports of which I am sure you have read, that Members on the Opposition Benches have had a fairly close partnership. In fact, there has been good co-operation across the Committee. However, this is the second time that I must fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I agree with his desire to see a
 different Mayor of London by mid-2005, although I suspect that we have different people in mind. This is not part of the hustings for the Mayor of London, however.
 The hon. Gentleman talked about the Olympic bid being the Prime Minister's show. My memory of the launch is different; I specifically recall the Mayor of London speaking very movingly about the benefits that a successful Olympic bid would have for some of the least well-off people in London. I enjoyed hearing what he had to say. The athletes stole the show, however, because they really explained the benefits of a successful bid for London and the rest of the country. 
 My reasons for disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman are quite simple. I believe in the basic premise of no taxation without representation. As the memorandum of understanding made clear, if the bid is successful the people of London will make a sizeable contribution to the cost of staging the games; and the Mayor is already committed to funding 50 per cent. of the bid and to raising more than £500 million towards the cost of staging the games. He has also said to the people of London that the average household is likely to face a council tax increase of £20. The person who represents the people has a right at least to be consulted, and that is all that subsection (4)(b)(ii) requests. It is eminently sensible that the Mayor, who, on behalf of the people of London, is making a sizeable contribution to the bid and to the staging of the games, should be consulted on the details of how the distribution body spends the money. 
 It worries me that the hon. Gentleman wants to drive a wedge between the bid committee, the Government and the Mayor of London in an unhelpful way. The Minister told me that I should not believe all that I read in the papers, so I have double-checked my facts, and he will agree that it was unhelpful of the mayor of Paris to allege that there were differences between the Government and the Mayor of London on this issue. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the numerous difficulties and differences of opinion that might arise on various issues, but on this one there is no disagreement. The Mayor of London made that very clear. He was present when the comments were made, and he heard them, as I did. The remarks made by the Mayor of Paris did not help his country's bid. 
 There will be, and needs to be, a close working relationship. It is right that London should contribute in the way that is planned towards the funding of the bid and, if we are successful, the running of the Olympics, and it is therefore right that the Mayor of London should be consulted on the issues referred to in the clause.

Richard Caborn: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has more faith in the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) getting elected than the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has in Steven Norris getting elected. I accept that we are not at the hustings for the Mayor of London, but it is
 something of a condemnation of the Conservative candidate that he would not be able to be consulted if he were successful in becoming the Mayor of London.
 I could not possibly comment on what the Mayor of Paris has been saying. We should not interfere in the bidding process in other countries. I can say that the hallmark of our approach to the bid has been the unity of purpose between the BOA, the Mayor of London, and the Government. That is reflected on the bid committee. The events of a week or so ago showed the world that there is a unity of purpose that has not been seen before. 
 We have been talking about the dome and Greenwich. I was in Greenwich discussing tourism. I am talking about something that is indicative of what has happened in London. Some people were saying that they have never seen such things happen in London before. We might have had to employ certain planning powers. We thought that some planning authorities might not be as co-operative as they could be. When I was in Greenwich, and talking about the development of the Olympic bid, a councillor who is part of the planning committee said what a great success it was that we had brought together all the boroughs that had a role to play in planning for the Olympics. This was before Christmas. He said to me, ''If Barbara Cassani wants a decision on Christmas day, she can have a planning committee and a decision on Christmas day.'' That is indicative of the unity of purpose that surrounds the attempt to make the games successful. No other single event has brought people together in that way. 
 Obviously, we must ensure that all the proper rules and regulations are in place, but we should maintain that unity and that partnership. It will be a major selling point when the IOC visits, and make us different from other cities around the world that are bidding. Anything that detracts from that would be unfortunate, if not politically naive. It is ludicrous to think that the Mayor would not be consulted about expenditure and investment in relation to the Olympic fund, when 50 per cent. of the income is being raised from that area. It would not be good in terms of the management of expenditure and the development of the facilities if artificial divisions were created. That would be counter-productive. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: To respond briefly to what the hon. Member for Bath said, I made it clear that my concerns were about the current Mayor of London. I have probed the matter sufficiently, and I will not pursue it further at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
clause 31, page 16, line 35, at end insert—
 '( ) the British Olympic Association;
 ( ) Sport England and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
 ( ) National Paralympic Committee'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 67, in 
clause 31, page 16, line 40, at end insert— 
 '(ca) the British Olympic Association; 
 (cb) Sport England and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; 
 (cc) National Paralympic Committee'.

Nick Hawkins: I shall be brief because some of these issues have been raised before. It struck us that there could be an opportunity to improve clause 31 by including the BOA, separate from the NOC. They are one and the same thing for the purpose of the bid, but it would be helpful to make it clear that the BOA, and Sport England and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, would be consultees. I am talking about an opportunity for sport more widely to be consulted. It is merely a probing amendment to check whether the Minister will indicate whether he has any plans, even if not in the Bill, to allow sport more widely to be brought into the opportunities for consultation on the distribution policy. We want all those involved in sport in the UK to have a voice.
 A few minutes ago, the Minister made an unusually politically partisan remark for this Committee about how the Government had a shortfall to make up in terms of sport. I remind him that it was John Major's Conservative Government who introduced the national lottery. At that time, all of us involved in sport were hearing from everybody else involved in sport in the UK that it was the best thing for sport that had ever happened. It was the success of John Major's national lottery that led to the huge increase in funding for sport. Never mind what they are doing now in supporting the Olympic bid, which we welcome, what this Government did initially, by introducing the new funding bodies, was to reduce the amount of money that sport was getting compared with the early years of John Major's national lottery. As the Minister is well aware, that caused a great deal of chagrin in sporting bodies throughout the country. We are working together cross-party to try to support an Olympic bid and make it successful, so I do not seek to pursue that partisan argument, but I wanted to remind the Minister when he talks about shortfalls about the success of the lottery in funding sport. 
 We seek to put in the Bill a provision for wider consultation. That is as far as we want to go.

Richard Caborn: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. His reference to the dome needs to be put into political perspective. I have, on many occasions, congratulated the previous Prime Minister, John Major, on what he did with the lottery. I have said many times that we do not want unduly to criticise the lottery, as has been the wont of some newspapers in the recent past, for small allocations of money to various causes with which they fundamentally disagree. That has had a disproportionate effect on the lottery and has done much damage to it. We should be careful how we highlight some of those cases.
 On amendments Nos. 75 and 67, we have not set out in the Bill provisions for consultation with governing bodies and wider sport. We have done that through the 
 mechanisms that are in place. They have held good in the past and will do so in the future. We consult widely: the BOA consults, as do our NDPBs, and we will make sure that their views are considered. To put them in the Bill as consultees could start slowing down the process that we are trying to keep lean and mean, as it were. We wish to ensure that it is an effective conduit. There is the opportunity for wider consultation, and we think that it is important to make informed decisions on behalf of sport, but that does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. What has occurred in practice has held good to date and we think that that will continue to be the case.

Don Foster: I want to pick up the Minister on what I am sure was a slip of the tongue that he will want to get off the record. He said that the new body would be lean and mean. We want it to be lean but, on this occasion, certainly not mean.

Richard Caborn: That depends on how ''mean'' is interpreted. I am saying that it will be an effective decision-maker. It will be mean in the sense that it will make those decisions purposefully. It will keep to that ethos throughout. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Hawkins: It was useful to get the Minister to say that. I am grateful to him for putting on the record his recognition of what the previous Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, did for sport with the lottery. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Dissolution

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
clause 32, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
'(aa) Paragraph (a) applies only on the basis that the net assets shall then all be used for the benefit of sport in the UK'.
 The amendment concerns the question of what happens on the dissolution of the Olympic lottery distributor. I have already said that we hope that this will not be necessary until after a successful Olympic games in 2012. 
 We wanted to put forward an amendment to probe the Government and to suggest that the transfer of property rights or liabilities should go, as set out in the Bill, to the Secretary of State, or any other person, but, as the words of our proposed amendment suggest, only on the understanding that the net proceeds should be used for the benefit of sport in the UK. This is a genuine attempt to improve the wording of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respect the spirit and intent of the words we seek to add. I do not claim any particular perfection in our drafting, and the Minister may well say that he is advised that the drafting may 
 not be quite right. If he cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he is able to say that it is the clear intention of the Government to ensure that whenever the Olympic lottery distributor is dissolved, the net assets arising from that dissolution will be provided for sport, and will not go into the all-encompassing maw of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Richard Caborn: I can give no more explanation than I did before. We are looking seven, eight or nine years ahead. There may well be assets, such as property, that would not necessarily suit sport, so we would not wish to tie any assets down to a particular area. We believe that the formula in the Bill—the transfer of assets to the Secretary of State or other persons—is sufficiently broad to enable sport to benefit, and it would be at that time that sport could make its case. I have no doubt that in this arena, the Olympics, the vast majority of proceeds would go to sport in one way or another. The hon. Gentleman stated that the legacy of the Commonwealth games was, broadly speaking, to sport in general, and I see no difference between that case and this one. To tie it down too tightly, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do through his amendment, would not be helpful, and for that reason I ask him to withdraw it.

Nick Hawkins: I am slightly disappointed with what the Minister said. It is helpful that he has put on the record that he envisages that the vast majority of the money will probably be going to sport, but it would be helpful, given that we may be looking some years ahead, to have something in the Bill that guarantees that. Governments come and go, and it would be useful, if we are looking to 2012 or 2013, for the Bill to show what Parliament had in mind. We may need to pursue the matter further, on Report and in another place, but in order to preserve that opportunity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Changes in Olympic procedure

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in
clause 35, page 20, line 1, at end insert—
'(2A) Any such order shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of each House of Parliament.'.
 The clause states: 
 ''The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of a change effected after the passing of this Act in the arrangements made by the International Olympic Committee in relation to the Games of the Olympiad.'' 
We believe that such a wide power should be exercised only on the basis of an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. It is vital, even if the IOC changes things and the Secretary of State wants to make a change, that such matters come before the House for scrutiny. I have already mentioned, and the Minister has acknowledged, that the shadow of the dome and 
 its awful precedent hang ever before us when dealing with this area of government. We therefore need to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny, and requiring the affirmative resolution procedure would help a great deal.

Richard Caborn: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, which is why we have made provision for what he has said in clause 36(4). On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I had not fully appreciated the link between clauses 35 and 36, but if the Minister assures me that that is the case—I see him nodding—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 6 agreed to. 
 Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Hypothecation of tax receipts from Lottery to Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund

'Notwithstanding the provisions of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 the Secretary of State shall by order make regulations enabling the tax otherwise due on the purchase price of tickets for the Olympic Lottery to be paid directly to the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 During my winding up speech on Second Reading, I described this as the acid test for the Government. Those of us who were at the bid launch at the Royal Opera house heard the Prime Minister's fine words about the support that he and his Government had for the bid. However, the Minister referred a little while ago to what his mother used to say to him—a stitch in time saves nine. My Norfolk granny used to say, ''Fine words butter no parsnips.'' The Prime Minister's fine words will be taken seriously only if sport sees that the Government are doing everything that they can to provide funding. 
 If the Government were to forgo what would otherwise be their tax take on a new Olympic lottery game, and say that the money that would otherwise go to the Treasury would go to sport to support the 2012 London bid, we would know that they were doing all that they could. It is a test of whether the Minister and the Secretary of State are able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be possible. It seems to us, having consulted quite widely on the matter, that it would not create any problems for Camelot in relation to the operation of a new Olympic game. It is a decision for the Government. 
 If the Government were to say that they supported sport so much that they would be prepared to forgo what would otherwise be the tax take and hypothecate that revenue towards sport and the 2012 bid, the country would see that as a powerful signal. Certainly everyone in sport and those connected with the Olympic bid would see it as a powerful signal that the Government intend to stick to every word of what the Prime Minister said at the Olympic bid launch the other day. I am interested to hear what the Minister will say in response to the new clause. It would be a valuable opportunity for the Government. If the Minister cannot agree to it today, we shall pursue the matter on Report and in another place.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer that I shall give: lottery duty is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
 It has been a serious exercise, and we have learned from the problems that arose with the Commonwealth games. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I came into this job at a point when those games were in difficulties, and we had to pump about another £100 million into them to make them the success that they were. Therefore, when we started to consider the budget for an Olympics, we were mindful that we had to include major contingencies, so our calculations have been based on a 12 per cent. betting tax on the lottery. It would have been naive of us if they had not been. All the budget figures that went out at the start and were subsequently put to the Cabinet, and indeed to Parliament, included a contingency of about £1 billion. I do not believe that any bid for the Olympic games in recent years has gone in with that amount of contingency planning built into it, but we believe that it is sensible. 
 My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I talked to many people who had been deeply involved with bidding for and delivering Olympic games, and they said consistently that they wished that they had not undersold the project at the start. The advice from almost every one of them was ''Put more into it at the beginning. If you have to pay it back at the end, that is fine, but put the contingency in, because, in the public's mind, the day you go back for more money is the day that 'failure' is attached to the project.'' If a budget can be projected that is sensible and robust, as I believe ours is, that will hold good for the Olympics bid. 
 To some extent, that is why the IOC has commended us on the sensible way in which we have approached the financial packaging of the bid, which, as I said, is well worked out, transparent and robust. The calculation included a 12 per cent. betting tax, because we did not take the naive decision that we could turn the Chancellor round. Why do I say that? The hon. Gentleman takes great pride in the fact that the Conservative Government introduced the lottery in the mid-1990s. They put a 12 per cent. tax on it, and that is the level at which Chancellors have kept it. Therefore, to believe that we could change that on a relatively small part of the lottery would not be wise. 
 All the calculations have been based on 12 per cent., and we have included the contingency. The final decision is not for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge that, he will have every opportunity to do so on a future Finance Bill. That would be the appropriate place to do it, rather than on this Bill. We do not want to detract from our unity of purpose.

Nick Hawkins: I am disappointed with what the Minister has said, because he made it clear that there has been no serious attempt even to try to persuade the Chancellor. He said that this is how it has always been since the lottery started, but the point about the Bill is that an Olympic bid is something special. The new clause would have enabled the Government to establish their credentials.
 I agree with what the Minister said about the good sense of contingencies. Who knows whether, after the next 48 hours' events, it will even be the same Prime Minister and the same Chancellor? The Government are not willing to contemplate that. As I have said, this is an issue that we shall want to pursue. We believe that the Olympic bid is special and that this would be a way in which the Government could show that it is special. For the Minister to say that this is not an issue for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but one that would have to be raised in a Finance Bill, is not good enough. We are saying that this would be a good opportunity for the Government to commit themselves to the Olympic bid to show that they really are taking every step to put the maximum amount of money behind the bid and towards sport. I am disappointed with the Minister's response but I shall not pursue the matter further today because we shall return to it on Report and in another place. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Richard Caborn: I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Illsley, and Mr. Sayeed for the efficient and effective way in which you have steered the Committee through its proceedings. I also put on record my thanks to the Clerks and the Hansard reporters, as well as the Doorkeepers and the police. It has not been an arduous Committee and I have been on Committees that have been slightly more lively than this one, but it has done an efficient and effective job and the outside world will have noted that and the unity of purpose. The probing through amendments was absolutely right and that probing will continue on Report and Third Reading. The Committee has clearly demonstrated the unity of purpose in what we are doing, particularly concerning the Olympics. I hope that that bodes well.
 I also thank my old Back Benchers—

Candy Atherton: Less of the old.

Richard Caborn: I am sorry. I thank my Back Benchers. We have also issued the odd press release, particularly on animal welfare. I thank them all, as well as the Opposition, who have made the Committee relatively easy and enjoyable.

James Paice: On behalf of the Opposition, Mr. Illsley, I mirror the Minister's comments. It has, as he said, been a relatively quiet Committee, not least because very few of his Back Benchers have contributed, other than on the animal welfare issue, although, according to the front page of The Independent, some of them may not be on his side for the rest of the day. We shall wait and see. I am not looking at the back of the Committee Room or anywhere else, Mr. Illsley, but I, too, would like you to pass on the Opposition's thanks to Mr. Sayeed and to the Clerks, the Minister's officials, the police and the Doorkeepers, all of whom have kept us going.
 One of the critical points about the Bill is that, as we said clearly on Second Reading, there are no partisan politics in it, and we concur with the overall principle of the three separate issues. There is a great deal of detail, and we have taken note of all the occasions on which the Minister has said that he will go away and reconsider matters. I assure him that we will ask him whether he has done so and what his conclusions are, both in this place and in the other place. We look forward to his consideration of our detailed concerns. 
 We wish the Bill well in its overall import and we have no desire to detain the House of Commons in its consideration. We want it on the statute book so that the various measures within it, particularly those covering the sale of the Tote, can be implemented as soon as possible. That is one reason why we are here with a day and a half still in front of us despite what was a pretty truncated timetable. We got here quickly but we have addressed the issues. We shall need to address some of them again on Report and we hope, Mr. Illsley, that you will encourage Mr. Speaker, in his allocation of time, to allow us to do so. In the meantime, we look forward to reconsidering what the Minister has said and wish the Bill a speedy passage through the other place.

Don Foster: I, too, join the Minister in thanking you, Mr. Illsley, your colleague, Mr. Sayeed, and everyone else who made our deliberations possible.
 I agree with the Minister, who said that the Committee has not been particularly lively because it covers a range of issues on which there has been a fair degree of agreement on both sides. As has been said, it has been a mixed Bill, covering three different issues: the Tote, the horserace betting levy and the Olympic lottery game. It was clever of the Olympic bid committee to find a way of drawing all that together by agreeing to have the Olympic beach volleyball event in Horse Guards road. There are clear links, and we all noted the Prime Minister's enthusiasm at the launch the other day when he praised the Olympic lottery bid team for arranging to have that beach volleyball 
 outside his bedroom window, although a different Prime Minister may benefit from that come 2012. Time will tell. 
 We have learned a lot in the Committee, despite little disagreement. We learned that where there is a fair amount of agreement, the number of letters that I can write to the current Mrs Foster is somewhat limited. She has received the odd postcard, but she has expressed some concern about my effectiveness in Committee. Be that as it may, we also learned that the Minister, who when he came into his new job at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said in an interview that he knew nothing about horse racing, has been a fast learner and has got himself up to speed on the matter. 
 We found interesting ways of getting various words into Hansard that do not seem to be relevant. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on getting the word ''parsnips'' on to the record. I was trying to find a way of getting ''cheese'' on to it. I am sure that, bearing in mind the speed with which we carried out our deliberations, we shall remember that wonderful phrase about the early bird that catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. That is worth thinking about. 
 We also learned not to trust certain phrases from some hon. Members. We all know not to trust the phrase about the cheque being in the post, and I was not entirely convinced when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath began a contribution by saying that he would be brief. The record will show that he said that on a number of occasions. 
 As the time and the day of the week demonstrate—it being Tuesday and not 5 o'clock on Thursday—the Committee has made great progress and has been very successful. I hope that the Olympic bid will be as successful as we have been in Committee.

Eric Illsley: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), my co-Chairman, I thank hon. Members for their kind comments. This has been a well-behaved and good-humoured Committee and as lively as we would like it to be. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not forgetting Mrs Foster. It remains for me to thank the Hansard reporters, the Attendants, the police and our Clerk.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.